My take on the Brady Bill, which I called "mostly window dressing".

[Half-Century Man]

Last edited Sun Oct 11, 2015, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Sorry for the delay in my explanation, I had family matters to attend to.

I maintain the Brady Bill ended up be "mostly window dressing" because it is the federal statute we currently operate under. The one with all the holes in it. The one we are currently saying is too lax.


1) It only covered handguns.
On Edit; My assertion here was made on older references. The updated statute includes long guns as part of the background checked purchases. My thanks for the everyone's assist . It is better than I thought, bit I still think it is wanting.

2) undocumented private transfer of firearms without background checks (through private sales, gifts, barters, Etc).
3) Gun Show loop hole (private sales by unlicensed dealers in an organized marketplace setting).
4) The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) only deals with criminal history. It does not include medical evaluations which are not the results of a court order. So, incidents which should have been a red flag to suspend firearm purchases until further investigation, slip by. For example, the Navy yard shooters encounter with LEOs who documented his paranoid rant at a hotel days before he bought the shot gun he used.
5) The Brady Bill has only stopped about 0.5% of the 202,000,000 checks made since 1998.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/federal_denials.pdf


It did some good, I do not deny that. However what could have been compared to what we got is quite sad.
At best we did half the job.

[Duckhunter935]

1. Please fix number 3

it has nothing to do with gun shows. It is an exception for private non-dealer sales handled withing the same state. Any weapon sold at a gun show by a dealer, and most booths are dealers, a federal background check must be performed.

Just a little pet peave

[tosh]

8. "most booths are dealers"...

please elaborate.

[Duckhunter935]

9. What is to elaborate

Most booths at any gun show I have been to that sell weapons are dealers. As dealers they must perform a background check on weapons sales even at the gun show. The ATF has definition of a dealer.

[tosh]

14. Most? Not all?

[Duckhunter935]

15. Some booths do not sell firearms

Knives, accessories, militaria, ammunition. Individuals are not going to pay to set a booth just to sell a couple of weapons.

[SecularMotion]

17. Where do the private sellers make their sales at gun shows?

You know, the ones that aren't required to make background checks.

[Duckhunter935]

21. Depends on the owner of the gun show

They may or may not do private sales there. You just can't get over it is not a gun show loophole, lol. If the gun show does not allow the private sale, they go down the street to another location as privates sales are governed by the state.

[SecularMotion]

24. And you just can't admit that gun shows attract private sellers and buyers

who make transactions there without background checks.

[Duckhunter935]

26. And you would be wrong

If you would care to read what I stated. Once again for you. It depends on the gun show operator and state law. All firearms sales by dealers by federal law must perform a background check at gun shows.

[SecularMotion]

28. But I'm not

Universal Background Checks & the “Private” Sale Loophole Policy Summary

The most dangerous gap in federal firearms laws today is the “private sale” loophole. Although federal law requires licensed firearms dealers to perform background checks on prospective purchasers and maintain records of all gun sales, it does not require unlicensed “private” sellers to do so. An estimated 40% of all firearms sold in the U.S. are transferred by unlicensed sellers.

According the U.S. Department of Justice, because federal law does not require universal background checks, “individuals prohibited by law from possessing guns can easily obtain them from private sellers and do so without any federal records of the transactions. The private-party gun market,” one study observed, “has long been recognized as a leading source of guns used in crimes.” Although the private sale loophole is frequently referred to as the “gun show” loophole (because of the particular problems associated with gun shows), it applies to all private firearm sales, regardless of where they occur.

http://smartgunlaws.org/universal-gun-background-checks-policy-summary/

[Duckhunter935]

30. Where does that say "gun show loophole"

If you would care to read any of my posts in this thread that is what I was correcting. There is no Gun show loophole. Only morons think that and I know you and other DU members are not morons.

[SecularMotion]

32. Only a moron would miss this and I know you and other DU members are not morons.

According the U.S. Department of Justice, because federal law does not require universal background checks, “individuals prohibited by law from possessing guns can easily obtain them from private sellers and do so without any federal records of the transactions. The private-party gun market,” one study observed, “has long been recognized as a leading source of guns used in crimes.” Although the private sale loophole is frequently referred to as the “gun show” loophole (because of the particular problems associated with gun shows), it applies to all private firearm sales, regardless of where they occur.

[Duckhunter935]

33. Made my point thanks

The part you just highlight states that is not correct to use gun show loophole as it is factually incorrect. Thank you for confirming what I have been saying here all along

[SecularMotion]

34. You're a lost cause.

Go ahead and alert on that.

[Duckhunter935]

35. I do not tend to alert

Unlike others, not to mention nothing to alert on.

[tosh]

20. So,

do all gun shows require that only licensed dealers sell firearms?

[Duckhunter935]

23. Depends on the gun show operators

And individual state law. Federal law just covers dealer transactions, even at gun shows. So what is this gun show loophole?

[tosh]

25. You're asking me?

[Duckhunter935]

27. No, there are literally

Thousands of operators and venues. I do not speak for any of them. But I do know by federal law all dealers must perform a federal background check.

[Snobblevitch]

10. It's been a while since I have been to a gun show,

but when I did, the vast majority of the dealers with tables at the gun show had FFLs and thus a background check was necessary to purchase a gun from them.

[Duckhunter935]

13. Well, when you tell the lie enough

People have problems believing the true facts.

[clamshells]

36. jury results

On Sun Oct 11, 2015, 06:28 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Well, when you tell the lie enough
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7252519

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling the poster a liar? I fail to see a lie.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Oct 11, 2015, 06:39 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I didnt read that as calling "The" poster a liar, but more of a call out of the whole concept of "gun show loophole".. which IS a lie.

There is no law in effect outside of a gun show that ceases to be enforceable inside of one, the very definition of 'loophole'.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post seems somewhat incoherent to me. So I chose to hide it because I see no evidence of a lie in the post being answered. I may be missing something here...
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: l fail to see the reason for this alert.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Still not hideworthy
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Duckhunter935]

37. Thank you

6-1 to leave actually surprised me. They are right, I do not call that poster a liar. Just pointed out there is no such thing as a gun show loophole and that lie has been posted so much, some people think it's true

Quite sure I know who my alerter is

[beevul]

2. "1) It only covered handguns. "

I'm pretty sure rifles are background checked at retail.

[X_Digger]

3. I assume he's talking about the waiting period (which expired when NICS came online.)

Of course that waiting period had no effect on violent crime, according to multiple studies.

e.g http://jonathanstray.com/papers/Gun%20Violence%20Meta-analysis.pdf , http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JAMA_Brady_2000.pdf

[Duckhunter935]

4. all of my rifles were covered

[Half-Century Man]

5. The Brady Bill mandates handguns, but allows states their own regulations.

Most do checks on long guns, But it is not a part of the Brady Bill.

on Edit: as far as I can find out.
Found further data. Long guns are included after enactment.

Sorry for my confusion.

[Kang Colby]

6. #1 is false.

The Brady Act applies to all firearms sold by a licensed dealer. It is not limited to handguns. The confusion probably stems from the fact the "interim provisions" in place from 94-98 only required the checks for handgun purchases. But as of 11/1998 all firearms sold by FFLs are covered.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/brady-law

No offense, but it seems like gun control advocates are always woefully unaware of the existing laws.

Thanks

[Half-Century Man]

7. As was pointed out earlier.

I had to go back through my references and found where my data was not updated.

Sorry.

But still not far enough.

[Kang Colby]

11. That's fair.

I understand that with the "ball of yarn" gun laws we have In this country, the various statutes can be hard to keep up with. I talk to people all the time in real life that don't have a basic understanding of the laws in place and I find it annoying if the person is a gun control supporter. No offense to you of course.

My solution would be a big national push to repeal restrictions on gun rights. Right now, private sales between residents (non-FFLs) of different states are prohibited entirely. FFLs can only sell long arms (rifles/shot guns) to non-residents directly....and yes the long gun sale must be legal in both states for it to be legal under GCA '68.

Not to mention all the b/s in the NFA.

[Duckhunter935]

12. There is no such thing as

"Unlicensed dealers" that would be violating federal law. It is a private sale by a "non-dealer" between two people that reside in the same state and the buyer is not prohibited from purchasing and owning firearms.

Like was pointed out, please post accurate information. I give you great credit for the edit. Many people would not.

[Duckhunter935]

16. What is an "unlicensed dealer"?

That would be against federal law.

[SecularMotion]

18. The term is "private seller"

[Duckhunter935]

19. Correct

A big legal distinction. Words do matter.

[HereSince1628]

22. Looks like your word count flagged what's got your dander up.

You want to get into banning people with 'histories of mental illness'.

There are problems with the concept of a history of mental disorders.

Histories only exist for events that have been noted.

Not everyone who gets their unnamed mental disorder noted -BEFORE- they purchase a firearm. Mental disorders emerge more commonly among people under 30, often people under 25, but mental disorders can emerge at -ANY- time, including -after- a person has bought a gun. Mental illnesses can also resolve and the numbers suggest that survival to middle age is associated with decline in mental disorders. So status of history may not reflect the status of present risk very well.

Indeed, most people with mental disorders somewhere around 75% to 80%, with mental disorders do not seek or receive clinical help, people who don't seek clinical help CANNOT HAVE A HISTORY. About 20% of Americans are estimated to suffer from symptoms of a mental disorder annually...that's 60 million people or 1 in 5, that's a huge number of people to treat as criminals in-waiting. That attitude would have social consequences.


There are some problems with the ambiguity of 'mental illness'. There are -many- mental disorders, most of them have no association with violence, in society or in private. The net that can be cast with this approach can easily be over-sized and complicate rather than resolve the problem of identifying the small number of persons who indeed are potentially dangerous.

To meet the standard of the equal protection clause of the constitution while you're denying them the right to make an otherwise protected legal purchase, it's not enough to show that some fraction of people with mental disorders commit gun violence. You -must- show that the targeting of a class of people is warranted because those people represent a demonstrably significant greater risk than the classes of people allowed to keep their rights to make legal purchases.

That's pretty damned hard to do for most diagnoses of mental disorder. Even where there is fairly well established linkage, say for depression and anxiety, the fraction of gun violence among the 16 million people who have depression every year is very small. Indeed, percentage wise, it's almost identical to the proportion of legal gun owners who commit gun violence. How do you justify taking the rights of one group and not the other when they have such similar risks?

Even if we look at the likelihood of a person with a diagnosed -severe- mental illness commonly associated with episodes of paranoia (schizophrenia, borderline personality, etc) committing an act of social violence (non-domestic, non-institutional) In the US their rate is estimated to be slightly over 6%. The likelihood of social violence among the general population is about 5%. Which is to say even for persons with severe mental illness there is -not- statistically significant elevated risk for -SEVERE- mental illness.

You and I and Congress can't really presume that every emotional, cognitive or behavioral disorder is known, accepted as an authentic disorder, and included in training of therapists, and psychiatrists. And they really aren't all known, yet.

Some of them may very well turn out to be associated with violence. Did you know that the APA rejected inclusion of a number of mental disorders when creating it's new edition of it's diagnostic manual last year? Did you know their rejections included a form of adjustment disorder characterized by 'embitterment' which includes heightened likelihood of acts of deliberate vengefulness? Vengefulness is a trait American's associate with a syndrome of violence called "Going Postal". Today in America, a person who actually has post traumatic embitterment disorder -couldn't- receive a valid diagnosis of it, and they would have -no medical history- the noted it, because the APA didn't include it in their diagnostic manual and so students aren't educated of it, and insurance companies don't recognize it and won't pay for its diagnosis and treatment.

If Congress goes down this road of politically facile over-broad taking of rights, you can bet it will be challenged and found unconstitutional.

What Congress -MUST- do first, if it wants to later go down this road with narrow focused rationales that are justified, is to FEDERALLY FUND RESEARCH INTO GUN VIOLENCE. We can't get to constitutional policies without credible empirical information.

[Half-Century Man]

29. I guess I'm being misunderstood.

My dander is not up, I'm just explaining an opinion I expressed in an earlier post.
I do not think the Brady Bill is very effective, considering what we are now finding the need to fix.

Some of my opinion was shaped by an old article from "Shotgun News" I kept for a number of years. I had used it to argue for greater measures for awhile. Thanks to help from DU members I learned of gaps which were filled in later.

My sister is a live in resident of the Shapiro Developmental Center in Kankakee, IL. She views the world differently than the majority of us do. I do not think she should have access to firearms.
If others also see things differently or grow to see things differently. Then they deserve a case by case evaluation as each of us do, if they might wish to possess a firearm.
If a question arises from observed actions, then society has the right to reconfirm any evaluation of a firearms owner. I'm just pointed out a single incident to illustrate my point (the Navy Yard shooter). If that was seen as an attack on persons of different perceptions, I'm sorry I wasn't clear.


And none of the points I've had to clear up or learn about change my opinion,
The Brady Bill Was Less Than It Should Have Been.

[Duckhunter935]

31. And you can see how the misinformation

Causes issues in this very thread. I have pointed out several times that dealers by federal law must conduct background checks even at gun shows. Since most if not all firearms sellers at gun show booths are dealers, background checks are required by federal law. Now one of the worst offenders at trying to get a hide is the host of one of the gun related groups. He knows better about the intrastate private sale exemption but keeps pushing the big lie. That is why I politely asked you to update that wording. Words do matter.

[Lee-Lee]

38. You forget one of the biggest problems- the government refuses

To prosecute, or even follow up, on the 70,000-90,000 people who break the law illegally trying to buy a gun and commit a felony doing so- every year.

When a person is denied on a background check it means that they committed a felony, perjury, when they filled out the form required to buy a gun.

It's a cut and dried, easy to prove crime- the dealer is required to keep that form
4473 on file with the persons signature right under the statement that they understand telling a lie is perjury. And if they got denied that means in at least one place on that form they lied- unless the FBI erred and wrongly denied them.

So you have a person who is a felon or domestic abuser or had been declared mentally incompetent or is a fugitive from justice or is not a legal resident or any other disqualifying factor or combination of them. That person is known to not be allowed to own a gun, and te Feds know that the person is actively seeking to buy a gun and just committed a felony doing so.

Wouldn't you say that person should be a high priority for at a minimum a follow up from law enforcement?

Less than 5000 of the 80,000 or so have any kind of follow up at all. Less than 100 a year are prosecuted.

They just leave the 75,000+ others out there to keep seeking a gun by illegal means.

That's indefindible.